 So, while you're sharing, I'm just checking that this sound is working for you. I'm speaking in a okay speed, the microphone is working. Is it? Yes. Okay, excellent. Yeah. Yes, it is my profile. It's my bio, actually. If you change the abstract on the URL to bio, as in BIO.txt, you will see a more traditional profile like audrey.org and then bio.txt, yeah, BIO, you got it, that was correct. This is the more traditional one. It's not a poem. It doesn't rhyme, but the good thing is it's in three languages. It's not 15 languages, but if you want to contribute more translations, I'm always happy to post it here. The action word here is the last word, the fork, the government. In the last line, when I said, in the social sector, audrey actively contributes to G0V or Gov0, a vibrant community focusing on creating tools for the civil society with the call to fork, the government, the operative word is fork. Now, fork means like a fork in a road in software development, you can fork a project without writing it off. So it's fundamentally different from individual to individual competition. In a competition, you're feeling the same niche, but with a very different approach. But fork means to inherit everything that there is, but take it to a different direction. So if you do not like, for example, how the government presents our budgets or how the government handles regulatory discussions or how the government handles the pandemic, you're free to fork whatever service there is in a way that does not violate copyright because we do not hold any copyright restrictions and then take it to a different road and innovate from the grassroots, from what we call the social sector. And then my role as digital minister is to merge the fork, meaning that whenever the citizens have a better idea of how to distribute a mask, how to vaccinate people, how to do contact tracing, their local approaches of maybe 500 people who tried it can be scaled to 5 million people and then 20 million people in a matter of a week or two. And so my role is just to make this scaling out the innovation, scaling up the innovation as smooth as possible to facilitate the fork and merge. I hope that answered your question about how to read my bio. Yeah, certainly. So I'm digital minister in charge of social innovation, youth engagement, and open government. I have a job description that I pin on my Twitter that you have probably already read, but it's very short anyway, so I will read it again. My job description goes like this, when we see the Internet of Things, let's make it an Internet of Beings, when we see virtual reality, let's make it a shared reality, when we see machine learning, let's make it collaborative learning, when we see user experience, let's make it about human experience. And whenever we hear that a singularity is near, let's always remember the plurality is here. So my role as the digital minister is to connect the people to the people, which is to me what digital means, and not just IT, which is connecting machines to machines. Whenever there is an emerging situation in Taiwan, it could be the legalization of Uber and ride sharing, it could be countering the infodemic, the disinformation crisis, the pandemic, and so on. I make sure that all the stakeholders who enjoy the freedom of speech and assembly and so on can bend together, meet together face to face or across the Internet, to discover the facts together, share their feelings together, and then develop pro-social, social media, where those feelings instead of polarizing, converge together into workable ideas that we then regulate into a co-created agenda. In this agenda, for example, on how Uber should be legalized, we gather this into the public digital innovation space, which is my office, and using the principles of radical transparency, posting all the lobbyists and journalists' ideas online, a shared infrastructure of cybersecurity and co-creation across the different silos in the government. We make sure that we work with the people, not just for the people, so those innovations that take care of the most people's feelings can become public policy again in a matter of weeks. I hope that answers your question. Thank you. Certainly. So, in the near term, my role at the moment is to set up the Ministry of Digital Affairs, or MODA, which would be set up in Q3 this year. And in MODA, we bring together what's previously belonging to different ministries in Taiwan, for example, the Commission of Communication, National Development Council, National Economic Affairs Ministry, and the Department of Cybersecurity, as a one, Ministry of Transportation and Communication, anything digital instead of dispersed within different ministries and connected together in horizontal ways. We will also now have a ministry of beginning around 300 and soon to be almost 1,000 people connecting those previous silos together into a new ministry. So that's my role for this year, is to set up this ministry. And then the ministry is preparing us to enhance two things. One is the resilience of our infrastructure. As you can see during the pandemic, we have set up extremely efficient infrastructures, for example, SMS-based contact tracing, where people do not have to download any app. They just point their phone to a QR code, self-service printed, and then without compromising their privacy, the random code is stored in the telecoms. And then the contact tracing, people can restore this whereabouts for the past four weeks without compromising individuals' privacy, because for the telecoms, venues, and so on, they do not actually have the access to the complete picture. For them, it's just random code, just gibberish. So this kind of privacy enhancing technologies paved the way of the kind of data altruism, data coalition, the kind of data sharing that we must enable in times of emergency like the pandemic. And in Taiwan, we have a lot of emergencies, earthquake, typhoons, not to mention other geopolitical ones. So we need to make sure that this kind of reliable, resilient infrastructure is there, no matter what kind of incoming situation that we're faced with. So this is for the maybe next two or three years. And the other thing is that this democratic model of co-creation, we want to scale it up and out so that it serves as a model, what we call the Taiwan model, so that we can use it to also work on climate issues, work on other issues, require international coordination, and then establish this as a new norm, not necessarily best practice, but certainly sometimes a better practice to counter the emergent situation that requires more multi-stakeholder and multi-lateral communications. And my contribution to the Summit for Democracy is largely the idea that we need to build the digital public infrastructures together in the international community. So that's also for the next three to five years horizon. And then for the next eight to 10 years, of course, the Sustainable Development Goals meeting those goals is our shared priority. And then after that, I think I do not pretend to predict the future. So I just want to be good enough and leave more room for the future generations to improvise. That is to say, we do not over-design things so as to foreclose possibility for next generations. We want the plurality, that is to say, the people who are closer to the future to enjoy the full freedom of innovating using the kind of Lego blocks that we're building now, the infrastructure that we're building now instead of over-concentrating decision-making power to just a few algorithm rule makers or to, for example, go for social harmony and that makes it less likely for people to innovate because there's just this one-slides-fits-all top-down approach and so on. So we want to enable as many co-creators as possible and also empower their communities. That's for the next 20 or so years. Yeah, that's a really good question. What makes me happy is, as I mentioned, a good enough consensus. So it's not perfect, right? To aim for a perfect consensus often means that people with the most time or the most privilege and so on dominate the discussion and take away the kind of spontaneity on the newcomers or future generations. So I'm at my happiest when everyone in the room, although of different positions, after gathering to God and share this feeling that we can all live with it. So this feeling of just good enough, we can live with it, that is when I am the happiest. So conversely, I am least happy when people have to obey the top-down dictates without understanding why. When people only follow the orders, what policies without any way to hold the powers to account, unable to speak, choose to power. So when people are muted, that means that I'm the least happy. So I'm happiest when we unmute ourselves and preferably share our host rights. Because the Dao De Jing literally says that the way you can go is not the real way. The name you can say is not the real name. So I can't really define Daoism, but I can make sure that I share the part of the Dao De Jing that I view the most authentic to my daily practitioners. So here is a chapter 11, I believe, the uses of not, and it goes like this very short. It says 30 spokes meet in a hub, like a wheel, right? Where the wheel isn't is where it's useful. Hollowed out clay makes a pot and where the pot's not is where it's useful. Cut doors and windows to make a room where the room isn't, there's room for you. So the profit in what is is in the use of what isn't. Okay, so for me, Daoism is focusing on the space, not the project. Focusing on the collaboration, on the gathering, not the violence. Focusing on the possibilities, focusing on making sure that people share those possibilities instead of any definite answer to anything. So like very shortly put is to cohabit with problems and be humble so that the solutions for now may come from surprising places instead of from a brilliant individual genius. So that's my understanding of Daoism. Yes, so again to quote stanza 17, to give no trust is to get no trust. When the work is done right with no fuss, no boasting. Ordinary people say, oh, we did it. So that's collective intelligence. In my opinion, when ordinary people can say, oh, it's the ordinary Taiwanese people that came up with all the counter-pandemic measures, that's really the only way. So the fatigue of counter-pandemic do not set in because people always are creative. They create their own counter-pandemic measures after each variant. And if we have imposed, as I mentioned, top-down ways without explaining why, then even the most strict lockdowns result in fatigue and people simply cannot maintain that for a very long time. So from my experience encountering the pandemic and infodemic, what we are doing in the public service is just to trust the citizens because to give no trust is to get no trust. And then when citizens see all the real-time data or the APIs or the context of policymaking, then we do not need to fuss or boast. The citizens come up with very effective, ingenious methods by themselves and ordinary people indeed say, oh, we did it. And immune to yourself, that's the operative word. Thank you. That's a great question. I did give a keynote at an international conference on functional programming for this particular question and that's a entire keynote. So I'll try to condense my answer, but the full program is Online Creative Commons. To me, in Taiwan, we call software engineers instead program designers. So to us is a designer profession, not necessarily engineering profession. Designers work with people, with society, whereas engineering discipline work with, I guess, engines. But that part is more and more being taken over by co-pilot and other assistive intelligences. So I believe in the future, computer programmers will move more and more toward the design part. Now, my field in computer science is programming language design. And in language design, what we're doing is to provide a set of thinking tools or abstractions. And the most important thing is to enable the people closest to the pain, the front-line programmers, to redefine the language the way they see fit instead, that of prescribing for the foreseeable future, how programs will look like. So the languages that work on Haskell, Raku, Previous Pro 6, and so on, all stretch the limits of the domain-specific languages and the programmers' liberty in defining and sharing their own visions of the world and sharing it with the programming community. And to me, this is exactly the same as politics. So I call myself a poetician, meaning that my job description, as you just heard, is a poem where I aim to provide a set of abstractions that, when followed, do not take opportunities away from the people at the public service and so on who use those concepts, but rather makes new concepts easier to generate. That is to say, if we say the singularity is near, everybody is doomed, AI will terminate everybody's job, then it prescribes a very narrow set of possible futures. But when we say no, the plurality is here. We must assist the society with technology and not the other way around. We must hold eyeglasses or assistive intelligence is accountable and so on. This, by itself, does not prescribe anything certain, but rather it liberates the public service toward more ways of collaborating with people exactly like a good set of abstractions and core libraries do in programming language design. So I would encourage fellow program designers to think on the design patterns, especially from a language design angle and then, more often than not, you can take the kind of trainings that you are already very familiar with and share it with the public service community. Thank you. Certainly. The second question is easier. So I'll just answer it right away. That was in 2014 where we literally occupied a parliament. So nobody really invited us in. We did invite ourselves in. And then at a time, the Taiwanese legislature were fast tracking without substantial deliberation across straight service and trade agreements with Beijing. And because of that, people were very worried about this process. So they went into the parliament. The theory was that the legislator were on strike, right? They didn't do their job in deliberating. So the people will go there and deliberate for them. Now, my role here is a assistive one. I and the zero people, the Juicy Robe people helped to ensure that all the corners of the occupied parliament and the streets were live streamed, transcribed, translated and basically facilitated by more than 20 NGOs. And so this quelled the fear, uncertainty, and doubt during the occupy. So for the three weeks, it was thoroughly non-violent unlike other occupies. And so the point here is that when people get into this co-creative mood, even the more complex aspects of the CSSTA, for example, whether we want to allow five, at a time, four G infrastructure from the PRC regime into our infrastructure of telecommunication. Now, that's a very hot topic, right? A few years down the line. But at that time, Taiwan was the only jurisdiction seriously deliberating it on the street. And so instead of politicizing that, we can imagine it's very easy to politicize that. People actually did a very down to earth risk systemic risk analysis of how much it would cost to continuously assess whether the so-called private sector actors from the PRC regime are being captured by non-market forces from that regime. So the environment of live streaming of every argument captured and then posted online made it easier for millions of people to listen to each other. Whereas before, it's only easy for one person to speak to millions of people, but not the other way around. So by scaling this listening experience, we proved that demonstration does not need only to be protesting. It could also be a demonstration of demo, of showing that it's actually possible to get a set of coherent, good enough consensus, which were then ratified by the head of the parliament at the end of that occupy, say, with a victory. So at the end of 2014, all the mural candidates that supported this kind of deliberation gets elected, sometimes surprisingly, and who didn't, didn't. So I was invited along with other occupy activists as reverse mentors to the cabinet, where I kind of interned in the cabinet for a couple of years before being, I guess, promoted to full-time in the same office as a minister. So that's the story. Now, going back to your question, so exactly the same process. Every day at 2 PM, the Taiwanese Center for Epidemic Command, just go on live stream posting all the data. The past few weeks, we've seen Omicron down to low single digits per day in local confirmed cases. So people feel, I guess, reasonably happy about that. But all the journalists, and indeed anyone with a landline, can call 192 to our toll-free phone number to ask to their hearts content of the shortcomings that they see on the CECC. So when the clarifications, when the signs, spreads faster than rumors, exactly as we discovered during the sunflower occupy, there was simply no room for disinformation and polarization to spread. And this pro-social environment is easy then to treat this as a kind of all out against the pandemic instead of one party against the other. Hope that answers your question. Well, as you can see, my title is digitalminister.tw. And this domain happens to resolve no matter which jurisdiction you're in. So as long as this takes place in cyberspace, that is to say on internet norms, we enjoy equal participation. Indeed, during the internet governance forum in Geneva a few years back, even though if I visit in person, I would not be able to answer with my passport due to well-known reasons. I did send a telepresence robot to speak on my behalf. Well, not representing me, representing me, I guess. And indeed that worked, right? I went on the record, as far as I know, the first one on the record since 71 or something on an official UN meeting. So the past couple of years, the pandemic made it not a weird thing to do, but rather even a general assembly itself a couple years back were conducted over video presence, right? So I think video conference in general and the internet multi-stakeholderism in particular enabled us to share our learnings in a much more equal-footed approach. Hope that answers your question. That's right. Yeah, definitely. Indeed, that is the central design criteria, right? For the kind of listening at scale. And as I shared the Polish conversation where we pioneered its use in public service 2015 is now a digital public infrastructure. All the public servants can just launch their own, like just like a Google form questionnaire, right? A weekly survey to discover the shared feelings among all in a way that's consistently controlling the trolls, that is to say, trolling doesn't pay on this pro-social social media. Now, for example, right now, I believe the join.gov.tw platform which enjoys around, I don't know, 30 million visits per year in a jurisdiction with 23 million people, so there's a lot. We're now asking people what they feel about how to make a more safe and more friendly water sport and enjoy our rivers and dams and things like that. And it's just posted a couple of days back and people are already posting their different feelings and we happen to be able to automatically discover their shared values despite their very different initial position, so this is very new. This is literally just out and people can see their participation, how those four different sets of people, nevertheless, share something in common. And so just by making sure that people see this as just something that they can do from day to day, we see this picture of democracy very clearly that the ideological statements that divides people apart. People do not then spend calories on it. People agree to disagree on, for example, some people think Uber is sharing economy and some people think it's gig economy, but actually for more practical, overlapping consensus, most people agree with most other of their neighbors, most of the time, because it sounds so mundane, it's not newsworthy, so you simply do not see on the news, but on this pro-social platform, including Polis and Join, people can see it very clearly that we actually have a lot more in common than the antisocial corner of social media would lead us think. And so just by sharing pictures after pictures of the common values, it enabled innovators to very easily identify the positive some parts to innovate without leaving anyone behind. I hope that answered your question. I guess. This is an excellent question. This is a social innovation lab where I meet people, the social innovators every week. Also, many of them are remote too, but whether it's remote or whether it's in-person, I make sure that it's on the record and it's in the creative commons. And it's not necessarily just Wednesday, like yesterday I had a meeting for a couple hours with Steve Cheng, the co-founder of YouTube who returned to Taiwan to start his new startups. And he had a lot to say about the startup ecosystem and how his thoughts on the algorithmic recommendations in YouTube changed when he started to have kids and when he became a parent. That's a very nice conversation. Now, whether his ideas are good or not is not for me to judge. Rather, my role is to ask the kind of questions that I think that are pertinent to the issues at heart, for example, algorithmic transparency. And then those ideas are posted as transcripts or YouTube videos and so on for the entire society to have a real conversation around. That is to say, I share my agenda-setting power but not necessarily decision-making power. It's important because the lobbyists or the journalists and so on who visit me know that they are talking to the future generations. It will be on permanent record. And on this particular setting, it's very unlikely for them to speak anything selfish because it would really look bad for the descendants, right? The future generations, people tend to speak pro-socially. So again, that's the Taoism approach to make sure that the space itself is creative, not that me in particular is good in judgment. It's the crowd that makes the judgment. Of course, we can use voting systems and Polis is a kind of voting system to ensure that people can collaborate without explicit coordination, but that's just technical details. The main idea is just that it should be crowdsourced and shared. Thank you. Well, for the record, I think I'm on fiber optic line, not 5G at this moment. But even if I am on 5G, this really is less carbon footprint compared to all of us flying somewhere, right? So everything is in perspective of what kind of habits people turn into. So if you turn a habit, like everybody flying to the same spot, into something that is less carbon intensive, even though that by itself is still energy consuming, it is a net win. Now, of course, your point is valid in that if we form new habits that simply weren't there before and we become addicted to it and it happens to be energy consuming, for example, burning energy for non-fungible tokens, my favorite example, then it does actually carries a real environmental risk. Now, my answer is very simple. When we make sure that the carbon footprint, the externalities cannot be hidden, cannot be a shift somewhere and all the jurisdictions are committed to at least make it accountable, then the jurisdictions or the practitioners that do not make it accountable will be violating the norm, violating the default. People will assume that they're hiding something and social sanctions may ensue, right? This is exactly the same model that we applied to other externalities, for example, tobacco control and things like that. So what I'm trying to get at is that nowadays we need just to keep giving out accounts, not just for the large public listed companies, but small and medium enterprises too. And we also want to make sure that when they do so, they get aptly rewarded. In Taiwan, we have this program called Buying Power. If a small or medium enterprise is committed to reveal their carbon footprint or other, GRI like disclosure that they're not by law required to do, right? Only the public listed large companies are required. But if they conform to the same standards, then we do preferential procurement, the supply chain that procure such goods and services gets a award from me personally or from their respective ministers and so on. And so when everybody gets this norm out, then it also rewards individuals to also look at their habits and then remind each other to be more proper, right? In our addictions and habits and so on. So I think I'm not optimistic on the technology of the social change. I see the kind of like the open space technology, non-biolate communication, whether incarnated digitally as Polis or whether it's face to face in a scenario workshop and so on. These are also technologies. These are habit-making social technologies that are equally important as compared to the other industrial use of digital technologies to facilitate change. Hope that answers your question. Yes. Okay, I can say names. Facebook is a really, really what I had in mind when I say anti-social corner of social media, right? Because it's maximizing, quote unquote, engagement in terms of the click-throughs on advertisements and so on. Now, granted, I've talked many times to the civic integrity team within Facebook. So there are people within the Facebook machine that want to steer it toward purpose. But as a profit-seeking entity with some purpose, when those two different bottom lines compete with each other, the easier route is always that profit motive wins even at the dungeon of their users, just like some other industry which also has users. What I'm trying to say is that when we make sure that these, I think the jargon is dark patterns, right? Because habit-forming patterns are revealed as harmful to mental health, to societal health, and so on. We basically treat them as the nightclubs of the digital sphere. That is to say, so with all due respect, we're not shutting down the nightclubs. But again, we're not steering our young people to it to conduct town halls, right? We have dedicated places for town halls. It's called a town hall. We have public parks. We have campuses. We have parks and national parks. And these also take infrastructure money to build. So in 2016 in Taiwan, for the first time, we said that even the infrastructure made out of bits, not out of concrete, even is intangible. It qualifies as infrastructure money of a special budget. And this is very important because previously, the state only sponsors the infrastructure for things that you can see, you can touch, like a public park or a town hall construction. But now we say things like join, things like the civil IoT response platform, and so on, all those digital places where people meet, along with civic infrastructure, like our equivalent of Reddit, the PTT, where people discovered the COVID in 2019, actually, and triage that message, simply because PTT is not for profit. It has no shareholders or advertisers. It's for purpose, right? So those for purpose civic infrastructure and those public service, public infrastructure, if they receive the same kind of funding as the state does for science and research and public sector and so on and maintained, then people understand, okay, for my kids, maybe in the weekend, we'll take them to a museum. We will not take them to a nightclub to do a mayoral conversation. Mayors would not be forced to give their public consultations in a nightclub where the smoke fills the room, you have to shout to get heard, people serve addictive drinks, there's private bouncers, and so on. But at the end of the day, we're not shutting down the entertainment sector. We are just saying that there should be a plurality of sectors within the digital realm. Thank you. Yes. So I'm in charge, as I mentioned, for social innovation and I work, I personally incubate the social entrepreneurs and the social entrepreneurs are there for purpose, but with profit. So purpose first, before profit. But the idea of social entrepreneurship, as you mentioned, actually is only possible if the state is willing to entertain the idea that for some of the public services, the civil society and the social entrepreneurs may actually do better. As one very concrete example, as you can see here in the 192 to SMS example, here the 15 digits are entirely random. When you go into, I think this is a 7-11, your phone transmits this 15 digits posted by 7-11 into your telecom. So 7-11 doesn't know anything about you, not even your phone number. And your telecom does not know what those 15 digits mean. So it's what we call a multi-party oblivious storage. And your telecom, and many other people's telecom, and so on, they store them in a federated fashion. They do not aggregate it anywhere. And the only person that can aggregate it is the epidemic control contact tracing people. And they must do so by leaving a complete record so anyone can just go to SMS.192 to and look at exactly which municipalities, which contact tracer have accessed your whereabouts in the past 28 days. And we delete everything after 28 days and it's never used for any other purpose. In many jurisdictions, Singapore comes to mind, but also Korea, the crime investigator try to get her hands on this data. But because in our case, the system is designed by G0V, by the social sector, by the civil society people. So there's already surveillance resistance built in. And because we adopted this civil society innovation, we honored their original intent and we interpreted the saying that it should never be used for criminal investigation. Actually, it should not be wear tapped at all. And we did that interpretation very quickly after a judge turned down the first search warrant and then went public about whistleblowing, that is to say. So again, I think this is a virtuous cycle. When we take the civil society inputs with privacy enhancing technologies, it sets a better norm. Then it encourages the whistleblowers within the public service, including judges, to go to the media. And then it enabled the media to crowdsource for even better, more private enhancing solutions, which were then taken into the governments. But the government must begin first. We must trust citizens first, hope to answer your question. It's actually very easy. So the way we worked is always swift and safe. I spent a year when I was 11 in Germany and my mom used to drive me around on the highway, the Autobahn in Germany. And it's very well known for having no speed limits. And I was fascinated by this concept of having no speed limits. And I asked my mom, would not it cause accidents and so on. And she explained that if you have really good infrastructure, not just the road, but also the car, not just the car, but also the requirement it takes on the drivers and so on, if everyone is in line, then actually the faster you are, the safer you are. So, and this phrase stuck with me, right? Basically, I would not trade efficiency with security. I would never introduce something that make the bureaucrats feel less safe, just make the politicians feel that oh, it's more effective. Conversely, I would not do anything that just to make people feel safe, like a security theater and so on, but actually increased the workload for everyone. So you need to be Pareto improvements, right? Things that are at least as safe and as swift as the status quo. And then we very gradually do incremental delivery so that at every given time of the day, the bureaucrats and the politicians that look at our solutions can simply say, oh, it's harmless, right? It's mostly harmless, harmless coexistence. And that is the trick. So instead of doing any top-down planning, as I mentioned, this is entirely crowdsourced. And I'm always ready to say, yeah, then my idea is a bad one and you have a better idea. Here's the blueprint. Go and fork my work. And so by co-creating with the people, not just for the people. In a sense, we are the resistance, right? So we do not encounter any resistance. Yes, thank you. I am very inspired by Tom Attlee. I work with him face to face also and the dynamic facilitators and so on. So I see myself just really assisting the facilitators not taking over. Thank you. Yeah, in Taiwan, we say the more rural you are, the more advanced you should enjoy the technologies. When we allocated, for example, the 5G spectrum auction, we make sure that for the universal healthcare, in Taiwan it's a very socialist, like single payer covering even dentist visits, healthcare service, the same for education services, including homeschooling community, which enjoy exactly the same right as the basic school community, as well as the communication and democracy and things like that. So in Taiwan, we have a very strong socialist core, like a parallel core, right? To the small and medium enterprise and the TSMCs of the world that are in parallel to each other. And we always make sure that the latest technological innovations, even before they find a market fit in a profit-based capitalist world, can actually find its pilots in one of the more rural areas to prove that, for example, drones delivering drugs is a good idea or not, or making sure that telemedicine visits enabling local nurses and general practitioners to do even more complicated diagnosis with the help of the telecare workers. And so again, we bring all of them first to the places where it's more unequal, which requires the kind of justice to restore their equal opportunity. In Taiwan, we have 20 national languages, many of which indigenous. In our latest AI, assistive intelligence research in natural language processing is applied to ensure that the legislators and city councilors can interpolate with their native language in any of those 20 national languages. I can go on. But as you can see, those startups that solve those social inequality issues enjoy the first mover advantage because if we compete on a purely for profit motive, the market is simply not there yet, right? So we foster this kind of social entrepreneurship market as a pilot tester, almost like a sandbox, and they gain kind of exclusive access of a set of interpretation as long as they can prove it's for public benefit for six months or one year and so on, technically exclusive. And if we discovered that this interpretation is actually a bad one, then we thank them for their contribution and everybody know harm done, the risk is not that much anyway. And then people learn to approach the problem in a very different way. But if it does work after three months or six months, then through mechanisms such as presidential hackathon, five teams each here receive a presidential trophy shape of Taiwan was a micro projector underneath it that you can turn on and it projects Dr. Tsai when giving you the trophy. So it's very meta. And Dr. Tsai when promises you on that video recording within the trophy, saying that you embody the plural values of Taiwan and I will make sure that your idea become public policy within the next fiscal year with all the personnel and regulation and budget support. And so it's like scaling out immediately to a national level if it proved to have a societal value. So a parallel track for innovation that drives the innovation on the enterprise side. And I think this is not that particular to Taiwan. I think for example, Japan with society 5.0 with strategic zones. And so are trying quite successfully from what I understand the regional revitalization based on the same idea of social innovation driving industrial innovation. So I do believe it's a model that is worth spreading. Yes, the answer is that I'm non binary and not just in gender in everything. So, and this is important because binary thinking that is to say friend or foe thinking dominates the kind of politics that leads to zero sun answers and is a self fulfilling prophecy. Now, in Taiwan we're enjoying very different constitutional design. I'm a double appointee meaning that people elect the president directly and then the president nominates the premier, the prime minister and then the premier nominates the ministers. And so in the cabinet at the moment we have nine ministries with our portfolio meaning a large ministers. And I think seven of us are non partisan. And within all the ministries, I think there are more non partisan independent members than members of any party. But that's not true in the parliament, not in the legislative branch. Of course, there's the usual party politics going on there. But having the executive branch staffed by mostly non partisans enable us to work in a politically neutral zone. And unlike most other designs of constitution most of the drafting of the law are proposed by the executive branch not by the legislators. And then the legislator of course do the amendments and the changes and so on in their usual way but the structure, the formulation of the laws are I think 90% or so are from the cabinet which is non partisan by and large. And so I think this is something that we see in other jurisdictions does only possible if you have a, I don't know, citizen's assembly, a citizen's jury or things like that that are kind of a addendum to the parliamentary politics. But by nature then it becomes competitive in representative power. But in Taiwan because of executive branch kind of serves as the buffer zone between the civil society on one hand, the movements and the legislatures, partisan politics. So we get a lot more room to maneuver. So that's I think quite fortunate that we have this double appointee design free from the party politics. Sure. Sure, sure, sure. Yeah, well my website easy to remember is digitalministrate.tw And there's a lot of blogs and so on this particular matter. And also feel free just to, I don't know, tag me on Twitter, send me an email, it's very easy to find. Thank you, thank you. Well, as I mentioned, I see internet of beings, not of things. I see collaborative learning, not just machine learning. In all of the events that you mentioned, I see plurality, not singularities. That is to say, when I say plurality, I mean allowing, even empowering groups to reach rough consensus with proliferating and persistent difference. And this is a very different, I would say is a distinctly Taoist view on things, right? Because if you're following a set of traditions or a set of dogmas and so on, then diversity or tensions or conflicts and so on can feel like setbacks if you're aiming for a particular direction of change. But as I often say in Taiwan, we're hit by earthquakes all the time with Eurasian play on one side and Philippine sea plate on the other. The Japanese people know what I'm talking about. And then whenever there's a earthquake, the tip of Taiwan, the Jade Mountain also grew. Every year we grow by like three centimeters. So I see tension, conflict and so on as necessary for people to feel the co-presencing, the in here togetherness. Because without such shared urgency, people's energy would not be able to contribute to co-creation from a plurality. People just disperse into whatever they're doing. But with this shared urgency, we now see people believing that democracy is not on the back slide after all. That it means something to be part of the democratic network. That it means something for liberal democracy to hold its own values. And that it's not out of date, but rather it can actually create innovative ways of not just spreading the words about any particular war, but actually about discovering new ways to counter even the most urgent pressures such as net zero together. So I think the wind is changing. Democracy instead of being seen as relatively less efficient or effective or simply out of date are now being renewed and people are asking a different set of questions like how can we make it more timely? How can we respond to each other's needs in the here and now? And so on and all this because of the urgency, especially the war that you just mentioned. Yes. I think there's the trap, right? Of trying to maximize automation, of trying to extrapolate the volitions of the current generation and make a single optimizing paperclip stuff out of it, right? So it is a very strong kind of solutionism spirit in some part of the tech, not necessarily technology sector. But I think we're now, because faced with real urgency, all those simple optimizing visions pales in comparison with the complexity of a pandemic and infodemic and a war. So within the past couple of years, we've seen that this dominating singularities here, conversation losing is potency a lot in everyday people's conversations. And even terms like surveillance capitalism cease to be a purely academic thing, right? People are weaving this into their daily conversations also thanks to like this, social dialogue and many other popular videos about this particular topic. So this optimizing mindset, whereas many years ago, like seven or eight years ago, I would say it's the main trap, I think, is no longer as insurmountable as it is now. I genuinely think that people are now really looking at plurality as a preferable outcome to singularity. So I do remain cautiously optimistic that we will be able to use digital to connect all, right, as the all in digitalization is to leave no one behind. In addition to randomly sending SMS to Russian telephone numbers. So I think what I'm trying to say is that 40 years ago when I was born, Taiwan was still in the martial law, right? It's very much authoritarian kind of continuation of a dictatorship in Taiwan. And I can say because my parents are both journalists during the martial law era, my earliest memories are around censorship and political control and surveillance and things like that. Now, so I can say with quite some confidence that in a authoritarian regime, what people say to the posters may not be what they believe. So take those poll numbers with a heavy grain of salt because people just say that to be safe. And then, but even with that in mind, in Taiwan we do rely at that time, for example, on international correspondents in Hong Kong who are paying a lot of attention to the human rights situation in Taiwan. Many underground reporters, journalists have to go a very kind of roundabout way of sending their reports and testimonies and so on to Hong Kong in order to get the Amnesty International and other international correspondents to actually see what's happening in Taiwan. And then it goes back as a foreign report to the Taiwanese population and so on. So Hong Kong played a very important role in the democratization in Taiwan. Now it seems the roles are reversed. And then we are of course hosting a lot of journalists which are previously based in Hong Kong, international or Hong Kongese journalists. So we do need to double down on journalism, on independent reporting and media, ensuring that the underground activists are equipped with not just journalistic training, but also journalistic technologies, things like anti-anarchist that can protect themselves against the coercive forces in a hostile environment. And with sufficient practitioners on journalism, I do believe that the truth will get out not just to the international community, but also to the people living in authoritarian regime themselves. It may look soft like a soft power, but I do believe that at the end of the day truth speaks louder. Yeah, so basically to communicate safely, we have the electronic frontier foundation along with many others who are working very closely to make sure that they can get the voice out. It goes to some details, like not just encrypting your disk in a full disk encryption, but also have a separate set of password, the rubber hose password, that if you're under violent coercion, you're just typing that password and it just erases everything and presents a safe environment and so on. So there's many technologies for people working in journalism, in reports, in a hostile environment. And in my previous life around the turn of century, I collaborated with the free net community to work on those technologies. Well, prior to entering the cabinet, my previous job, day job, was the Siri team working on cloud service localization in Apple for six years. And so we're in an assistive community, assistive intelligence community. And whenever the people who cannot use Siri to their liking is always the designer spot, it's never the people spot. That's the nature of assistive technologies. So I am a fervent believer in the assistive paradigm, in the sense of technology fitting the people not the other way around. And I design my public service projects always with input, with my parents who are around 70s and my grandmas who are around 90s and so on. And I would actually say they are very familiar and comfortable and not just because they're my parents and grandparents, but because we design with their input in mind. It's not that it's about old or young, it's about how many hours did they spend as fellow designers, as fellow participants and contributors, as makers, essentially. If you get them involved in the design of digital services as early as possible, they have very much a lot to say and a lot more time on their hands since they're already tired, to try out different things. My grandma, 90 years old, for example, suggested a bunch of her younger friends around 80 years old to try out our masquerading pre-registration system. And we designed initially to use debit card in the ATMs within all the convenience stores. And you can just insert your debit card, type your password, it will wire a trivial amount of money to prove that you are you. And with the receipt, you can redeem for the pre-registered mask, it all works very quickly. Now the grandma, Yang, one of the around 80 year old friends who to my grandma is a young friend, tested that and said she would never do that because she used an ATM just to withdraw cash. But to wire anything out, she always resort to pen and paper because she don't want her typos to end up, you know, wiring out her entire savings, she feel less safe. Although it's swift, it's quick, it's not safe. And with her input, I always say, okay, so if you're the digital mister, what would you do? And grandma Yang said, oh, just use our universal health card without entering passwords and because it has no accounts associated with it. So she knows that it's safe and if you need to pay, well, she will count in coins, right, around the corner in the counter. So the point here being that nobody imagined that an ATM like Kiosk can insert a health card. But it's all typically IC cards. The IC chips are in the same position. So with some firmware and software changes, it actually can be done. And that's exactly what we have done. So then grandma Yang convinced all her younger friends around 70 and 60 years old in the community because she came up with that idea. So by amplifying the wisdom of the elderly, we ensure that they become the early adopters. And once they do that, they actually are very influential in the community. When they convince their younger generations, they carry still that this family kind of authority, right? So just to involve the elderly as much as possible early on, so they lock in more hours into the co-design, co-creative mood. And I guarantee you that they will be as comfortable as the young people. Thank you. Yes. Of course, I always emphasize Taiwan's liberal democratic tradition, right? The liberty of, according to the freedom in the world and freedom on the net survey in Freedom House, we're really doing pretty well in terms of civic space. So having the civic space in the first place is a condition, right? The liberty, the freedom is like a operating system on top of which democracy flourish. But if you do not have this underlying operating system, then indeed, as you said, that if you try to run the software, there's simply no rem for it, right? That the kind of working capacity is not there to support this kind of upper level application. So when I was a child at a time, there was essentially not so much political freedom, certainly no freedom to form opposition parties in Taiwan. So my mom worked instead to get the co-ops movement on the way. So she co-founded this Homemakers Union to popularize the idea of now they will call it circular economy and then to contract the farming producers and so on in a consumer co-op fashion. So by focusing on the consumer rights, by focusing on getting the messages out around the correct labeling, no pollutants, organic farming, and things like that. She possesses no harm, no threat to the dictator, to the authoritarian regime. But it's very much possible to amass social legitimacy this way. Indeed, the largest Taiwanese charities like Siji and so on all began even before our first presidential election. But still today, if you have a local earthquake and the charities publish a number, the municipalities publish a number, people still believe the social sectors number. So this sort of legitimacy focusing on not politically controversial, but rather nobody can argue against consumer protection. And so then using the same techniques of voluntary association of nonviolent communication, one can actually get a legitimacy in exactly the same way as we practice now in digital democracy. So digital democracy is not a public sector only thing. People can do that in social sector as well. And in time, that will also power the sort of digital democracy that we've been talking about. But this can power by the social sector. Well, it's science fiction. But reality sometimes are even more imaginative than science fiction. So, but to answer your question. So a website to a refinery is not the same as the refinery itself. So it's very easy to shut down a website to a refinery, but it's very rare for a refinery to be powered by its website. So in technical terms, the information technology and the operation technology, the IDNOT, are not necessarily tightly coupled, meaning that to deface a website does not translate automatically to the red button access. On the other hand, getting the website access can enable people to get insider information. Maybe there's a kind of contact addresses or whatever internal emails and so on that can then enable what we call social engineering. So basically the more regular person to person way to calling your way basically into getting access, but that is not just by running programs alone. This is just making sure that people can get the kind of insider information that are kind of prerequisite of starting such person to person operations by themselves, right? And so actually one, I alluded to, right? There was a leaked SMS contact database of Russian people and there's a website that enable pretty much anyone using your mobile phone to send random anti-war messages to a mobile phone number in Russia set up by the sort of people that you mentioned. So to me it's, in a neutral term, it's direct action, right? Not waiting for anyone to kind of go to a multilateral setting and say anything, but rather take some of the matter to their own hands. But most of what you read on science fiction are not currently possible, but reality has a way to be more imaginative. So I wouldn't say it's never possible. Thank you for the question. I didn't get the examples. They send out paper postcards because the post office ensure everybody received them in the same day, okay? Right, right, right, right. Yeah, but yes, but it's a great example. So one can, for example, say that we ask a post office to deliver the snail mail, the paper mail to all the recipients this Sunday, for example, and then you send an email that Sunday afternoon and problem solved. So I mean, so for me, harmless coexistence means that it's swift and safe, right? So if it disadvantages people, we can always turn it into an advantage. I have a anecdote about postcards. In Taiwan, we used to require the people who apply for the reimbursements for COVID related sufferings if they're low or mid income or their income gets impacted by the COVID, they can redeem $10,000 by proving that their income is being harmed by the COVID. The first time we did that in 2020, people lined up at the desks of the local health and welfare offices and workers are simply overwhelmed and the new type of city even transported boxes and boxes of farms to the central government and say you designed this form, you must type it in because we're simply overwhelmed. I'm sure Japanese people know what I'm talking about, right? So after this initial foray of paper based forms, we switch very quickly to postcards and by last year, 2021, we switch entirely to postcards. Now, if you're a lower median income person and you don't want to file your application online, all it takes is to ask your local district office or any of those self-service printers in all those 12,000 convenience stores to print a postcard with the postage stamp already prepaid and then you just fill the A4 paper two times and with a photocopy of the envelope of your bank account and sign your name and presto, you just put it into a nearby like postbox and then something magical happens, right? It's aggregated into a post office. The people who are suffering from handicaps of movement are pretty good typers, gain employment by typing in those postcards and very quickly they get aggregated into the digital websites as if these small or medium income people have filed those website applications themselves and if they have a debit card and if they're a parent, for example, they can also use a ATM and type the health insurance number and just withdraw cash, right? So, well, what I'm trying to get at is that digitalization doesn't mean paperless. It means to make the possibilities swift and safe. People feel safer when they don't have to queue in line, especially during time of COVID and the people feel that it's safer when they can't just count the bills at an ATM or get if they don't have a debit card at all if they don't have a bank account then at least a check is mailed right back to whichever address they write on the postcard and the desks on the local welfare office is no longer swamped because they're not even open to receive applications. So the point I'm trying to make is that digital transformation enables all the touchpoints to innovate, empowering the people closest to the pain and they get the freedom to innovate to solve the issue at heart instead of waiting for somebody at a central government to type in their forms and so on. And only by making sure that the underlying bedrock systems are secure and resilient and offer a set of APIs like war sockets, right? Can those startups, those innovations and so on plug in safely and to basically deliver the service in a way that's more pro-social than anti-social whichever the emerging situation is. So that's my anecdote about postcard and about reducing inequality. And I think my grandparents, for example, all very much appreciate that my digitalization strategy doesn't involve abolishing paper forms in post offices. Yeah, but that's forced digitization, right? And the root cause is definitely the virus, not the bits. In Taiwan, even at a height of our only real wave, the alpha variant, the school never closed to the disadvantaged children. Even when we move some of the classes online just for a couple months, the disadvantaged children can always go to the school and participate using the computers and facility to stay with proper precautions and support, of course. And it also prompted us to begin this September this semester to adopt a way for those disadvantaged children to also bring those iPads and laptops home. So previously they have to go to school because our zero trust cybersecurity wasn't all the way there. We rely on a kind of internal network to keep them safe but we've double down on investing in that sort of cybersecurity arrangement so that we're now pretty sure that they're safe around the edges. So whereas of course all children's enjoy the use of iPads and iPads if the teachers see them as complementary we're not replacing paper-based textbooks if the teachers and parents are not comfortable with it but the disadvantaged children including a medium income family with like five children, they can all take those laptops and iPads home, I think beginning this September. Thank you. Taking this as a compliment. Yes, yes. It's very clear and it's a really deep philosophical question. That is to say how can we design public service such that people who want to maximize their private profits nevertheless ends up maximizing purpose? So it's like the Holy Grail, isn't it? If we solve that we solve pretty much everything. And I do have some contributions but I would say it's better practices, not best practices. I don't think anyone claim to have best practices in this regard. I have consistently discovered that if the business community are operating under a very clearly defined social norm then they would not even attempt regulatory capture because it does not pay. But when there the social norm is being hidden by the polarization and party politics then it creates opportunities for the private logic to dominate the public one. So I call the model that I'm building in Taiwan a people-public-private partnership that began with the people. For example, people occupying the parliament non-violently to set a norm around the 4G infrastructure adoption from the PRC regime components or people occupying the national auditing office to do direct action and bring out zero copies of the campaign donation and finance record which used to be kept on paper only. But the zero people, the activists made a game where people can solve capture to turn individual cells in that huge spreadsheet back to structural data so that the campaign donation and finance can be republished to investigative journalism as public open data. Now the national auditing office, of course, protested saying you can't be sure it's a correct character, a cognition and which got zero responded. That is why you should publish as structural data yourself. So, and then that creates such a strong social norm that the national auditing office actually had to publish as open data. And once they do in 2018, the investigative journalism community discovered that Facebook advertisements were not filed by pretty much any candidate on that year's election as a donation or expense in that record, which is to say you can actually pay from outside of our jurisdiction to bypass fact checks through advertisement to influence the election without being captured by our national auditing office. So then we went to Facebook and other large platforms saying okay, our domestic platforms all agreed to conform to this national auditing norm and it's not a government ask, it's the social occupiers ask. So if you do not conform to our local norm, you may face social sanction. Chances are people will socially sanction Facebook because people already know that it's a problem thanks to the media journalism community. So I think there was a whistleblower who quit Facebook. I think she was in a civic integrity team who said Facebook had to take selected jurisdictions very seriously because the social backlash threat is cogent, right? It's true. So then they actually did reveal as open data in real time all the social and political advertisements during the next election period leading to 2020. And also they banned all the campaign donations outside of our jurisdiction as well at a loss of their advertisement revenue. So this is just one very small anecdote, but it shows that the government is much stronger when negotiating with a profit seeking entity when the trade negotiation has the people on your side. And you can say it's our people forcing me to do this trade negotiation. That's what I mean by people public private partnerships. Thank you. Thank you. It's a great question. I see AI as assistive intelligence. And by assistive, I mean aligned and accountable. By aligned, I mean that this glass is aligned to my personal interest of wanting to see you better more clearly, but its job is not to replace my eyes. And it's accountable in a sense that if it's biased or broken, I can fix it myself. I can take it to the local repair person down the street. I do not have to pay $3 million of licensing fee or spend three years to reverse engineer it. So just so that it does not project advertisement to my retina, which would not be aligned to me. It would be aligned to the advertisers. So a very simple example of a eyeglass as assistive technology showed that we need to treat AI, hold them accountable and aligned exactly as any other form of assistive technology. And if we do so, so that it protects the dignity of the citizens instead of treating them just as users, then it will enhance the possibility of creating better jobs that leads to more satisfaction. Because you can then delegate the part of the mundane task that nobody want to do anyway to those assistants. But if you do not have the local tweaking control, if the innovation is not open, is not aligned to you, then actually it's the other way around. It becomes authoritarian intelligence where individuals become replaceable as soon as their data is surveilled and gathered and their pattern of repetition being learned by the algorithms and then all the creativity from the person doing the job disappear and then become entirely automated. So it's a conscious choice that all the jurisdictions can do. And I believe that, for example, GP AI, many international organizations around AI are now converging on such pro-social data collisions or data altruism organizations and so on that has a very specific purpose-based direction for AI-based research and funding. And if we collectively decide to stop funding the dark patterns of authoritarian intelligence, then I'm not worried about it making the jobs even less welcome and even less enjoyable for human beings. Hope I answered your question. Yeah. I think there's real danger when we speak of D metaverse or A metaverse because that, to me, is the singularity mindset that we will have to conform to whatever social norms that set by Zuckerberg or some other metaverse-making person. And I think the real danger is in the spontaneity of social interactions being dominated by the prescribed interaction patterns by whichever person that creates the rules on top of which the so-called metaverse operates. Indeed, that's what the novel Snow Crash is about. In Snow Crash, where the word metaverse happened, the reality is so bad it's entirely dystopian. Nobody wants the reality anymore. It's very violent, very fragmented, and so on. So people escape to the metaverse because the reality was really, really very bad. And then people escape to the metaverse, and then the rule makers, like hero-protagonist, who know how to make those rules gain a distinct, unalterable advantage by being a what we call OG, an original gangster in the making of the metaverse. So this is really a dystopian novel. I don't know why nowadays people are selling it as a utopian vision. So what I'm trying to say is that the vision of plurality that I have is co-creational and inclusive, which means that it's an extension to the plural relationship that we already have, that we can then shape however we want. We can build our own microcosm. For example, I used shared reality in 2016 to talk from Paris with a bunch of middle and I think primary schools students in Taiwan. And I shrank my avatar is entirely open source platform. I shrank my avatar to the same height as they are and towards the school yard or whatever with them. And then don't have to look up to me, right? Because I became the same height as they are and in a kind of familiar avatar and then they can treat me as more like a peer-to-peer relationship. I put myself in their shoes, so to speak. And there was another project where we worked with elderly in Gaoxion and then we made their avatar resemble their youth and then in the shared reality they traveled down literally in the memory lane and served as guides to the local young people on how the streets look like during the Japanese era in Taiwan and so on. So what I'm trying to say is that if it's a shared reality that's defined including an interaction norms by the people who want to share their reality, their ambience, then it's conductive to more face-to-face sharing and more connection between groups of people. But if both sides instead of end-to-end innovation need to conform to the norm of intermediary, then exactly the same problem of surveillance capitalism happens except of course maybe tenfold as more serious. So we need to really actively resist any singularitarian vision of made of us and embrace instead a plurality or as some of my friends say a plurality of us. Hope to answer your question. Yeah, there was a last question. Yeah, yeah, so make it quick. How about it? Yeah, okay. Yeah, but all my civic tech friends, people who work on democracy affirming technology see that urgency as a kind of wake-up call and they're now much more energized and frankly speaking receive more funding because of that event. So I think I'm still very optimistic in the US being a open experiment admitting to its mistakes and correcting them in the open. At least it does that, right? In the more authoritarian or closed countries they do not admit mistakes, right? And even after they do, they try to solve the people who bring those news instead of the problem itself. I do think there is every opportunity for the people who work on democracy enhancing technologies and privacy enhancing technologies to thrive in the US, not because the US leads the world in terms of democracy and liberty but because it has itself correcting in the open culture that we are seeing unfolding right now. So I'm still pretty optimistic and let's just work with them together. Sure. Yeah, I always quote Lena Cohen so I'll do that now again. So ring the bells that still can ring. Forget your perfect offering. There is a crack, a crack in everything and that is how the light gets in. And thank you for the great questions. Live long and prosper. Thank you.